Smoking protective against lung damage
nightlight
and emphysema) showing protective effects of smoking against
respiratory problems and lung impairments:
"Smoker's Lungs" con, Emphysema and Study Demonstrating
Protective Effects of Tobacco smoke:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r=7961046281#7961046281
DutchVanAfoort
snip your headers when answering this bright light.
--
"Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win."
-
Michael Barrett
"Squeezer" who refutes the quoted paper is so full of it, I'm sure he'd fail
his colonoscopy because they wouldn't be able to get the colonoscope up
there.
Virtually NOTHING about the reasons for lung diseases is correct.
It's all a crock. There are no protective effects of smoking.
--
Commander Bob
Ex Lung-boy
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
news:EdqdnQVBoOuqITHY...@rcn.net...
MikeG in Erie
me greatly. Some of them are now dead of emphysema. So much for the
preventive effects of smoking. And I have emphysema too, and two heart
attacks. During the last one, they had to shock me twice to get it beating
again. I never got any prevention from smoking, no indeed I didn't. Mike
"Michael Barrett" <ka...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gv8rh.153452$YV4.82391@edtnps89...
nightlight
> Years ago when I was in here quitting some folks were here with me, helping
> me greatly. Some of them are now dead of emphysema. So much for the
> preventive effects of smoking. And I have emphysema too, and two heart
> attacks. During the last one, they had to shock me twice to get it beating
> again. I never got any prevention from smoking, no indeed I didn't.
Shouldn't the fact that you have quit 8+ years ago and your
emphysema didn't go away indicate that you have been duped
and likely harmed by the antismoking con artists?
-----
Even more tragic case (similar to Peter Jennings) was fellow
from alt.support.stop-smoking newsgroup who wrote recently:
"I quit smoking on May 15-04. Today the Doctors told me
I have lung cancer, and only have 6 to 9 months to live.
I'm sooo scared. The world needs to stop smoking.
Jerry, the expuffer"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.stop-smoking/browse_frm/thread/c320fa9686eeb152?hl=en
If smoking had any role, it protected him all those years
from lung cancer by helping remove & clean up more efficiently
the industrial pollution & radiation damage. In animal
experiments (see links below for references) smoking animals
get fewer lung cancers than non-smoking or ex-smoking animals,
in a linear dose-response manner -- the more they smoke, up to
well over 5 packs a day equivalents, the fewer lung cancers
they get. Even after half a century of antismoking "science",
they still rely on 'lying with statistics' to make their case
and can't get animals to get lung cancers from smoking (even
when poor animals are forced to smoke equivalents of a several
cartons per day through implanted breathing tubes, their
whole lives, yet no increase in lung cancer rates to show).
In human _randomized_ intervention trials, smokers randomly
selected into the "quit group" (which is not the same sample
as self-selected non-pressured quitters) get over 20 percent
more lung cancers than those left alone. About 80-90 percent
of schizophrenics smoke (it relieves their symptoms and even
cuts the risk of getting schizophrenia or its recurrence in
half) and most of them are chain smokers, yet at any age they
get lung cancers (and most other cancers) at half the
rates of general population (which smokes at 20-25 percent
rate and significantly fewer cigarettes per smoker). In USA,
the average number of lung cancers per cigarette smoked
has grown over 8 times since 1950s, while the total number
of cigarettes smoked in USA is much smaller now than in 1950s
(and fewer cigarettes are consumed per smoker).... and so on,
anomaly after anomaly. All hard scientific facts which focus
onto the causal role of smoking, come out the "wrong" way,
by demonstrating that smoking is protective and not
a cause of the lung cancer.
Poor fellow, this "Jerry the expuffer". I hope he doesn't
listen now to the quacks and let them ruin with chemo those
few months they told him he has left. If I were in his
shoes, I would pick laetrile (B17, the bitter apricot &
peach pits) based treatment which at least has many real
life people who had advanced lung cancer, folks left by
doctors to die within weeks, who then went on to live
for years and decades (with cancer still there, not in
remission but transformed by laetrile into a benign tumor
tissue). I would also resume smoking, and use some high
quality additive free tobacco, such as Natural American
Spirit, hand-rolled and without filters, with a bit of
dried ground apricot pits powder mixed in with tobacco
(it actually makes an interesting, exotic flavoring, a
whiff of Italy, Amaretti cookies & liquors).
* Interesting B17 links:
http://www.vitaminb17.net/index.html
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel.html
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/whatisinb17.html
http://www.cancure.org/laetrile.htm
http://www.ralphmoss.com/
http://www.whale.to/cancer/laetrile.html
http://www.navi.net/~rsc/
-----
I have known only couple people with emphysema and heard
of few more. All of them have been ex-smokers, some
have quit decades ago (when just about every man smoked).
Once it started (often well after they quit smoking), their
emphysema didn't go away or stop escalating due to
non-smoking.
Note that the claimed link of smoking to emphysema is
indirect, via the inflammatory route -- smoking allegedly
causes inflammatory immune response, which in turn leaves
residual neutrophil elastase enzymes that need to be removed,
otherwise they destroy elastin in your lung cells. Due to
liver's failure to produce neutralizing enzymes (alpha-1
antitrypsin), the neutrophil elastase remains in lungs and
destroys some elastin (spending itself in the process).
Since smoking has been long out of you life, presumably it
is not "causing" inflammations any more (in reality tobacco
smoke is protective against inflammations; Dr. W. Whitby,
link to his online book is given later, advised his patients
to take up smoking as a treatment for bronchitis and asthma;
this was mainstream medical advice until 1950s, even in
medical textboks) and producing neutrophil elastase to
keep the the destruction progressing (normally your lungs
could and do repair elastin damage if the other enzymes
in the biochemical network were working).
As the cited paper clearly demonstrated, when you control
for exposure levels to strong immune antigen (such as aluminum
dust & vapors in this study) and vary _only_ smoking as a
parameter then you discover that those inhaling tobacco smoke
reduce their risk of lung damage _sixfold_ vs never-smokers
and elevenfold vs ex-smokers. As explained in the linked
discussion, the ex-smokers are the worst off, since their
prior smoking serves as an indirect statistical marker of
their likely stronger genetic sensitivity to these antigens
(while never-smoking would be indicator of likely lesser
genetic sensitivity).
This is similar the way that use of sunscreens among
people on the beach serves as an indirect statistical
marker of persons genetic sensitivity to sun (the lighter
skin people would use it more often and more). Using the
techniques of antismoking "science", you could "prove"
that sunscreens cause skin sunburns and skin cancers
by ignoring picking your sample to include people with
different levels of exposure to sun into the same sample.
Then you will find that never-users of sunscreens rarely
get skin cancers and sunburns (they may be those living in
Seattle or London or other rain & smog drenched, cloudy,
drab place) while the heaviest users of sunscreens (who
would be the most light skinned people spending lots of
time in the hot sun) get the most skin cancers. And voila,
the "science" has "proven" that sunscreen use causes skin
cancers. Would banning or pressuring people to stop using
sunscreens reduce skin cancers?
That is precisely the kind of "science" that duped you
and millions of others for the profit of the Big Med and
Big Pharma, who created "antismoking science" out of
thin air (and who create & fund "grass roots" antismoking
groups, buy antismoking laws,...), making billions not
only from smoking cessation products, antidepressants,...
but now making even more billions from "treating" you and
millions of others who fell for their "antismoking" con
and "death curse", and got damaged by the resulting
biochemical meltdown and from denying themselves the
health benefits of the ancient medicinal plant, the
gift of gods, tobacco.
Here are some links for your study, to help you snap
out of the antismoking propaganda matrix, shake off
their "death curse" and improve your health by enjoying
the magic of the ancient, sacred medicine you were duped
into denouncing:
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
* R.A Fisher on early antismoking fraud in science
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Lauren A. Colby "In Defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
== Tobacco and other herbal & traditional remedies under attack
by medical and pharmaceutical, the sickness, industry
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/7b173004cc986af1
== How to lie with statistics -- modern junk science
with many antismoking con jobs explained (online book)
http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html
== Money trail behind antismoking swindle
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/18ce47ecd9c15eda
* Antismoking Pharma Cartel
http://www.worldsmokersday.org/pharma_cartel.html
* Big Drug's Nicotine War
http://www.forces.org/evidence/pharma/index.htm
* Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (aka J&J) buying antismoking "science"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Antismoking "death curse" kills
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5881077181#5881077181
== Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/2041070281?r=1811090281#1811090281
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/2281075671?r=3441018081#3441018081
* Smoking animals live longer & get fewer lung cancers
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=7161047671#7161047671
* 20th century lung cancer trends (smoking protective)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5841016571#5841016571
* "Polonium-in-tobacco-smoke" sleight of hand:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=8521066181#8521066181
== Antismoking scientists trying to figure out why is tobacco
so healthy and "steal" secrets of its magic for the Big Pharma:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671?r=6291068771#6291068771
== Smoking protects against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrenia
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB19&Number=13834&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post13964
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r=2371046281#2371046281
== * Getting Organized
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/866605742/m/2771083571
* Smokers Tree
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/3651075151?r=6871030281#6871030281
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/3651075151?r=5101090281#5101090281
* Yellow star armbands for smokers
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671
MikeG in Erie
never have believed it if I did. Its a bunch of crap on the face of it.news:hZCdnee4P-LjyTDY...@rcn.net...
rainbow...@lycos.com
CONVERGE OF 1969-2007.
THIS COULD BE THE END.
http://www.librarising.com/astrology/moonsigns/Simages/susandey.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FOKuXLxCwo
It was raining hard in 'New York,
I needed one more trade to make my night.
A lady up ahead waved to flag me down,
She got in at the light.
Oh, where you going to, my lady blue,
It's a shame you ruined your gown in the rain.
She just looked out the window, and said
"Sixteen Park Ave".
Something about her was familiar
I could swear I'd seen her face before,
But she said, "I'm sure you're mistaken"
And she didn't say anything more.
It took a while, but she looked in the mirror,
And she glanced at the plane ticket for my name.
A smile seemed to come to her slowly,
It was a sad smile, just the same.
And she said, "How are you Mikey?"
I said, "How are you Sue?
Through the too many miles
and the too little smiles
I still remember you."
It was somewhere in a New York fairy tale,
I used to take her home on a bus.
We never learned about love in the back of the Dodge,
The lesson hadn't gone too far.
You see, she was gonna be an actress,
And I was gonna learn to invest
She took off to find the footlights,
And I took off to find the stock.
Oh, I've got something inside me,
To drive a princess blind.
There's a wild man, styling,
He's hiding in me, illuminating my mind.
Oh, I've got something inside me,
Now what my life's about,
Cause I've been letting my outside tide me,
Over 'till my time, runs out.
Baby's so high that she's skying,
Yes she's flying, afraid to fall.
I'll tell you why baby's crying,
Cause she's dying, aren't we all.
There was not much more for us to talk about,
Whatever we had once was gone.
So I turned my limo into the street,
Past the gate and the fine trimmed lawns.
And she said we must get together,
But I knew it'd never be arranged.
And she handed me twenty dollars,
For gas, she said
"Mikey, you haven't changed."
Well another man might have been angry,
And another man might have been hurt,
But another man never would have let her go...
I stashed the bill in my suit.
And she walked away in silence,
It's strange, how you never know,
But we'd both gotten what we'd asked for,
Such a long, long time ago.
You see, she was gonna be an actress
And I was gonna learn to invest.
She took off to find the footlights,
And I took off for the investments.
And here, she's acting happy,
Inside her handsome condo.
And me, I'm flying on a plane,
Taking insights, and getting stoned,
I go flying so high, when I'm stoned.
nightlight
> I was never duped at all...I never even heard of such a thing, and would
> never have believed it if I did. Its a bunch of crap on the face of it.
All the scientific studies cited & quoted by me and by
others I linked to, were sponsored by antismoking
interests (the con artists behind up the antismoking hysteria,
making the big bucks out of all the hoopla) and conducted by
mainstream antismoking scientists, published in peer reviewed
reputable medical journals. You can't get more authoritative
science than that. As indicated at the first link on the
example of potroom workers, the antismoking authors are
extermely euphemistic and lawyerly about stating their
findings, visibly straining to avoid sounding as if
smoking is good for you (which it is). These are certainly
scientific sources as far from tobacco industry research
(which virtually doesn't exist any more) and interests
as you can get.
Believe as you wish, but all the facts I brought up are
hard scientific results. It just happens that they go the
"wrong" way with respect to the expecations of the research
sponsors and the scientists who stumbled upon them against
their best efforts not to go there (reality is stubborn,
the truth always finds a way to break through, eventually).
Hence such results gain no mass media publicity within
the present antismoking zeitgeist. That's why they are
shocking to you and most other readers here.
If you care about your health and wellbeing you ought to
ignore their money motivated brainwashing campaign and their
"death curse" laid upon smokers and learn the facts as
they are.
After you study the subject rationally with emotions and
prejudice set aside, you will discover to your astonishment
that if there is a single medicine you could have for
everything that ails you, that one medicine would be the
ancient gift of gods, the sacred tobacco plant.
There is simply no other single medicine, traditional or
conventional, that comes even close to its healing magic
against as wide spectrum of diseases and symptoms. It is
the single most dangeorus competitor to the Big Med/Big
Pharma products and services and that is why they are
attacking it so persistently for half a century. They
attack & badmouth, of course, all other traditional &
herbal remedies, but none as viciously or for as long
as tobacco.
Reality can't be cheated or avoided for for ever. You
have already been had once and sucked half way into the
Sickness Industry's money making meat grinder, pushing
you forward to wring and squeeze every last penny out
of your medical insurance and personal resources, before
it puts you on a high dose of oxycontin to expedite the
excretion of your profitless, bone dry remains.
Becky
understand why you cross-posted this stuff to a quit-smoking newsgroup.I
will never be convinced that tobacco is healthful.
Becky
Four days, 8 hours, 2 minutes and 31 seconds. 216 cigarettes not smoked,
saving $20.16. Life saved: 18 hours, 0 minutes.
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
news:YeWdnWxry5gr7zDY...@rcn.net...
nightlight
> You will never convince me that smoking is not harmful.
It is harmful, but only to the profits of the Big Pharma.
The statistical associations between smoking and variety
of diseases is of the same nature as association between
the use of aspirin and headaches or use of sunglasses
and sunburns. Just as banning aspirin won't cure headaches
or banning sunglasses won't prevent sunburns, banning smoking
wont prevent any 'smoking related' diseases (it only increases
their rates and makes sufferers more miserable).
When phenomena A and B are statistically associated then the
following possibilities exist:
1. A is be causing/promoting B,
2. B is be causing/promoting A
3. Some phenomenon C is causing/promoting A and B
The antismoking science simply leaps to #1, A causes B, and
avoids religiously probing using hard science possibilities
#2 and #3 since every time they did that it backfired -- the
smoking turned out protective or therapeutic against the very
"smoking related" diseases it was blamed for causing.
You can verify info I provided, it is all available online,
for free, no one is selling you anything. The scientific
facts I bring out are all from antismoking scientists & interests,
the stuff that went "wrong" despite their best efforts to rig
the experiments the other way.
Check also R. A. Fisher (great British mathematician and the
father of modern statistics) on early years of antismoking con:
R.A. Fisher "Cigarettes, Cancer and Statistics" (1958)
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher274.pdf
Other Fisher's comments on antismoking con job through stats
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
As to convincing you, your body is already telling you that you
are harming it by quitting. To "read" what its message is, just
take a deep breadth, then hold air as long as you possibly can.
What is the message you body is sending just about you are to
inhale again? What does it feel like? Take you patch off for
a day or two, then try doing some puzzles or accounting, or
go argue with someone, and read the message your body is
sending you now.
Both messages are telling you the same thing (you are on the
wrong track, you are harming yourself), through the same low
level communication channel.
The smoking message will also come through via many other
channels, at different levels, all the way up to your rational
thinking channel. That is the one my post is aiming at.
You will be better off in every way by taking into account the
full information available than relying on the half of the story
from antismoking con artists making money from your quitting.
The money they make is not just for nicotine patches and gums,
but for antidepressants, antipsychotics, weight loss pharmaceuticals
& therapies, anti-Parkinson's, anti-Alzheimer's, hormone supplements,
pre-eclampsia, asthma, colitis, intestinal cancers, and hundreds
of other diseases for which tobacco smoke is therapeutic and
protective against (see the links given earlier).
> Frankly I dont
> understand why you cross-posted this stuff to a quit-smoking newsgroup.
Folks the most harmed by the antismoking con are in this newsgroup.
At least smokers have benefit of the ancient medicine, even though
they're being gouged by taxes and discriminated against. You are
being gouged by Big Pharma for their snake oils, while undergoing
the biochemical meltdown (lots of low level stuff changes when
you stop smoking) and the ancient medicine which would certainly
cure the problem is out of limits for you.
Of course, time will heal you eventually, just as it would
if you were to lose your arm. The wounds will heal but the stuff
missing will remain missing.
As to why would I care to do this, here is song with a hint:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35P06-JbCGk
> I will never be convinced that tobacco is healthful.
Your body already knows that it is so. It is only the implanted
Big Lie from the bunch of rich con men that is holding your mind
paralyzed with their "death curse". It is a chain holding you
inside their propaganda matrix. If you were to go smoking while
believing in it, it would actually harm your health:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5881077181#5881077181
Eventually you will overcome their curse, yell out, fu*k the
nannies, fu*k the smoke hysterics and stick the middle finger
to the Big Pharma con men, light it up and bring your body and
your mind into a harmony again.
The links I provided will help you make that harmony even
more perfect -- you will be able to enjoy it in a complete
peace, knowing with absolute certainty of your full rational
mind that this ancient, sacred gift of gods is not merely
"healthful" for you but that it is the best single medicine
you could ever have.
Robert
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
news:EdqdnQVBoOuqITHY...@rcn.net...
>A recent study (and a discussion on so called "smoker's lungs"
> and emphysema) showing protective effects of smoking against
> respiratory problems and lung impairments:
>
> "Smoker's Lungs" con, Emphysema and Study Demonstrating
> Protective Effects of Tobacco smoke:
> http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r=7961046281#7961046281
>It's been awhile since I've read anything so full of crap. This guy
>"Squeezer" who refutes the quoted paper is so full of it, I'm sure he'd fail
>his colonoscopy because they wouldn't be able to get the colonoscope up
>there.
>Virtually NOTHING about the reasons for lung diseases is correct.
>It's all a crock. There are no protective effects of smoking.
Except for the minor faux pas of the getting the author's name wrong, your rebuttal was
brilliant. You utterly destroyed nightlight's argument without wasting a word on his facts
or logic. Only a true master of debate could accomplish that feat. Most people who tried
would invite contempt for an ignorant fulmination.
Miss Elaine Eos
"Michael Barrett" <ka...@telus.net> wrote:
> It's been awhile since I've read anything so full of crap.
[...]
> It's all a crock. There are no protective effects of smoking.
The world health organization -- WHO, to date, has done the biggest,
most comprehensive study on this subject -- disagrees with you.
Misc "well, their policy makers don't, but their STUDY does!" :)
(Google it.)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Shawn Hirn
"MikeG in Erie" <mgay...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Years ago when I was in here quitting some folks were here with me, helping
> me greatly. Some of them are now dead of emphysema. So much for the
> preventive effects of smoking. And I have emphysema too, and two heart
> attacks. During the last one, they had to shock me twice to get it beating
> again. I never got any prevention from smoking, no indeed I didn't.
One of my colleague's was out playing with his kids in his back yard
last year when one of his lungs collapsed. He was rushed to the
hospital. While in the hospital, his other lung collapsed the next day.
His doctors found a lot of polyps in the inside of his lungs. The
doctors attributed those polyps to smoking. As soon as he got out of the
hospital, he quit smoking. This person told me he feels a lot healthier
since he quit smoking.
For some reason, many people need to have a near death experience before
they realize smoking is not in their best interest. I hope those who are
reading this do not fall into that camp. There is no reason not to quit
smoking unless you enjoy making some tobacco company rich.
To the Little Country People Known As The Bumpkins/Pods The Word Of Your
MikeG in Erie
using the Spireva Inhaler, but it caused my throat to swell, and now I need
something else. I really hope the quitters in here don't believe anything
you say, because smoking is death!news:YeWdnWxry5gr7zDY...@rcn.net...
> MikeG in Erie wrote:
>> I was never duped at all...I never even heard of such a thing, and would
>> never have believed it if I did. Its a bunch of crap on the face of it.
>
>
> All the scientific studies cited & quoted by me and by
> others I linked to, were sponsored by antismoking
> interests (the con artists behind up the antismoking hysteria,
rainbow...@lycos.com
MikeG in Erie
rainbow...@lycos.com
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>There are no protective effects of smoking.
>
>--
>Commander Bob
On the whole I agree. Smoking is a lifestyle for relaxation, etc.
It's not "healthy" per se. However, there is less Alzheimer's in
women who smoke cigarettes. And, women (again) who smoke after a
heart attack, and only for the first three months, have less sudden
death than those women who don't smoke (British study.) After three
months those women who continue to smoke have higher death rates and
reinfarction rates.
CigarBaron
Joe LaVigne
> In article <gv8rh.153452$YV4.82391@edtnps89>,
> "Michael Barrett" <ka...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> It's been awhile since I've read anything so full of crap.
> [...]
>> It's all a crock. There are no protective effects of smoking.
>
> The world health organization -- WHO, to date, has done the biggest,
> most comprehensive study on this subject -- disagrees with you.
>
> Misc "well, their policy makers don't, but their STUDY does!" :)
> (Google it.)
>
No, they found a slight protective effect of second-hand smoke for
children in smoking homes.
They did not find any protective effect of smoking.
Cigarette smoking, especially, is bad for you. I do not think it is the
tobacco itself, though, but rather the many harmful chemical additives
used in the processing. A natural cigarette, while still not good for
you, would be far less harmful, IMO.
ni...@verizon.net
Shawn(Shane Hen) Hirn wrote:
>
> For some reason, many people need to have a near death experience before
> they realize smoking is not in their best interest. I hope those who are
> reading this do not fall into that camp. There is no reason not to quit
> smoking unless you enjoy making some tobacco company rich.
Truly an astute observation. I think we file that under human nature.
Like when folks become closer during holidays, disasters, and a death
in the family.
Or when you are extra cautious with your driving after a fender bender.
Naturally he attributed it to his smoking, and perhaps he truly does
feel better. Give us a report 6 months from now.
At any rate your undying concern for us smokers is surpassed only by
your trolling
Come back, Shane . . . .come back . . .
Shawn Hirn
ni...@verizon.net wrote:
No trolling. I am posting in alt.smokers and I replied to a subject
about smoking. Perfectly on topic.
Shawn Hirn
Miss Elaine Eos <Mi...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <gv8rh.153452$YV4.82391@edtnps89>,
> "Michael Barrett" <ka...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > It's been awhile since I've read anything so full of crap.
> [...]
> > It's all a crock. There are no protective effects of smoking.
>
> The world health organization -- WHO, to date, has done the biggest,
> most comprehensive study on this subject -- disagrees with you.
Cite?
Shawn Hirn
Marc Schneiderman <garb...@telerama.com> wrote:
What a great deal? A lower rate of Alzheimers, but at the risk of a much
earlier death. The benefits from smoking, if they really exist, for
staving off Alzheimers may be able to be replicated without smoking, but
its something that should certainly be studied further.
nightlight
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
The only statistically significant result was the _protective_ effect
(~20% lower risk) of secondary smoke against lung cancer for children of
smokers:
"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
Hutch lee dixon
nightlight
> Except for the minor faux pas of the getting the author's name wrong, your rebuttal was
> brilliant. You utterly destroyed nightlight's argument without wasting a word on his facts
> or logic. Only a true master of debate could accomplish that feat. Most people who tried
> would invite contempt for an ignorant fulmination.
>
Robert, you must have hexed the original post. I was editing it
this morning and by clicking a wrong button, I wiped out most of
it at the original forum (I had no backup for it). If someone
has the original post from the speakeasy forum, it would handy
if it were copied here (even without links, I can add those
later). Thanks.
The study discussed was:
-------------------------
BMJ: Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 56, 468-472, 1999
http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/56/7/468
Lack of combined effects of exposure and smoking on respiratory health
in aluminium potroom workers
K Radon, D Nowak and D Szadkowski
Ordinariat fur Arbeitsmedizin der Universitat und Zentralinstitut fur
Arbeitsmedizin, Hamburg, Germany.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the combined influence on respiratory health
of smoking and exposure in an aluminium potroom. METHODS: In a cross
sectional study of 75 potroom workers (23 never smokers, 38 current
smokers, 14 ex-smokers) and 56 controls in the same plant (watchmen,
craftsmen, office workers, laboratory employees; 18 non-smokers, 21
current smokers, 17 ex-smokers), prevalences of respiratory symptoms and
spirometric indices were compared.
RESULTS: Smokers in the potroom group had a lower prevalence of
respiratory symptoms than never smokers or ex-smokers, which was
significant for wheezing (2.6% v 17.4% and 28.6% respectively, both p <
0.01), whereas respiratory symptoms in controls tended to be highest in
smokers (NS). No effects of potroom work on the prevalence of
respiratory symptoms could be detected. In potroom workers, impairment
of lung function due to occupational exposure was found only in
non-smokers, with lower results for forced vital capacity (FVC) (98.8%
predicted), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (96.1%
predicted) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) (80.2% predicted) compared
with controls (114.2, 109.9, and 105.9% predicted; each p < 0.001).
Conversely, effects of smoking on lung function were only detectable in
non-exposed controls (current smokers v non-smokers: FVC 98.8% v 114.2%
predicted; p < 0.01; FEV1 95.5 v 109.9% predicted; p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In a cross sectional survey such as this, the effects of
both smoking and occupational exposure on respiratory health may be
masked in subjects with both risk factors. This is probably due to
strong selection processes which result in least susceptible subjects
continuing to smoke and working in an atmosphere with respiratory irritants.
------------------------
The key result is that for exposure controlled group (the potroom
workers, who had the maximum exposure) the smoking reduced the
risk of lung damage sixfold compared to never-smokers.
Robert Broughton
Neither the "protective" effect referred to nor the "RESULTS" quote appear
anywhere with the article cited here.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Plonk all you want, you self-satisfied Nazi asshole."
- Alex Woods, Dec. 8, 2006
styl...@lycos.com
nightlight
> nightlight wrote:
>>>>The world health organization -- WHO, to date, has done the biggest,
>>>>most comprehensive study on this subject -- disagrees with you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
>
>>The only statistically significant result was the _protective_ effect
>>(~20% lower risk) of secondary smoke against lung cancer for children of
>>smokers:
>>
>>"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
>>increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
>>95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
>
>
> Neither the "protective" effect referred to nor the "RESULTS" quote appear
> anywhere with the article cited here.
The cited lung cancer "odds ratio" OR for children of smokers
is 0.78. If you denote rate of lung cancers for children of
smokers as S (e.g. S = number of LC cases per 100,000 children
of smokers), and those of non smokers as N, then S/N = 0.78
i.e. S = 0.78 * N which is N = 1.28 * S. In other words, the
rate of lung cancers for children of nonsmokers is 28 percent
larger than the LC rate for children of smokers (within the
standard confidence interval 95 percent).
What is exactly confusing you? Perhaps it's their weasel-wording
i.e. they label the actual decrease of risk for children of smokers
as lack of increase of the risk?
That kind of euphemistic wording is quite typical for
antismoking biased research when faced with a beneficial
effect of smoking they stumbled upon, despite their best
efforts in the design of the study to avoid finding such
effects. The same happened in another childhood ETS study
from USA, in which the only statistically significant result
was even greater decrease (OR=0.4 and 0.7) of lung cancer risk
for children of smokers, which the authors (Brownson et al.
see citation at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html)
characterize as "There was little evidence of increased lung
cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in childhood".
Similarly, look at the study discussed here, where they found
that in the controlled exposure group, smoking decreased the
risk of lung damage sixfold (compared to non-smokers). Authors
label euphemistically that dramatic decrease of the risk
as "lack of combined effect" of the exposure plus smoking,
meaning that smoking did _not add_ to the risk from the
exposure to aluminum vapors & dust. In fact, their figures
show that there was no real lack of the effect -- the smoking
dramatically decreased the risk of lung damage. The
significant effect was there, but it went the "wrong" way
from the perspective of the authors. That finding apparently
grated against the ears of the authors and sponsors so much,
they just could not make themselves say it plainly.
Unfortunately, to establish what the scientific facts are,
you need to read beyond the euphemisms and wishful verbal
conclusions in the abstracts and look at their figures and
graphs to see what is it that they really found. That's
how the antismoking propaganda matrix works at present
and you just have to work around their childish spin.
* You can get the full text of the WHO study at the JNCI page:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440
* For a plain description on how these "odds ratios" work
and how they are manipulated by our "Sickness Industry",
see an entertaining online book (free):
Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research
http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html
Summer C
f3as3
nightlight
> What a great deal? A lower rate of Alzheimers, but at the risk of a much
> earlier death. The benefits from smoking, if they really exist, for
> staving off Alzheimers may be able to be replicated without smoking, but
> its something that should certainly be studied further.
The protective effects of smoking against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and
schizophrenia have been known for decades and are so dramatic that
nicotine patches were tried as a treatment (they do relieve the
symptoms somewhat, but not nearly as well as the tobacco smoke which
also has protective effect). In general population, smoking reduces the
risks for each of the three diseases in _half_ (comparing subjects at
the same age). For some special subgroups, such as the early onset
Alzheimer's (which is due to genetic predisposition, the presence of
ApoE4 allele, common in northern Europe, and which strikes at ages
40-50), smoking reduces the risk _tenfold_. Similarly, quitting smoking
increases the risk for Alzheimer's by 50% for each 10 years of non-smoking.
You can find references to papers with these figures in an earlier
post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.dentistry/msg/aefa2ffe3c5eac4d?hl=en&
Schizophrenia:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/12/2216
Interestingly, schizophrenics smoke at a very high rates since it
alleviates their symptoms -- 70-90 percent of schizophrenics smoke and
most are chain smokers, yet they have 30-50 percent lower rates of lung
and many other cancers (in every age group) compared to general
population (which smokes at 20-25 percent rates and fewer cigarettes per
smoker). This has been known for deaces. See for example a recent study
and more references there:
"The association between schizophrenia and cancer: a population-based
mortality study"
Mary E. Cohen, Bruce Dembling, John B. Schorling
Schizophrenia Reserach, Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 139-146, 2002
http://www.schres-journal.com/article/PIIS0920996401003085/abstract
CuckooCat
Thanks.
Robert Broughton
> Robert Broughton wrote:
>> nightlight wrote:
>
>>>>>The world health organization -- WHO, to date, has done the biggest,
>>>>>most comprehensive study on this subject -- disagrees with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cite?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
>>
>>>The only statistically significant result was the _protective_ effect
>>>(~20% lower risk) of secondary smoke against lung cancer for children of
>>>smokers:
>>>
>>>"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
>>>increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
>>>95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
>>
>>
>> Neither the "protective" effect referred to nor the "RESULTS" quote
>> appear anywhere with the article cited here.
>
> The cited lung cancer "odds ratio" OR for children of smokers
No, asswipe. You're just making stuff up, and you got caught.
GWB
<mgay...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>I sit here gasping with emphysema as I read this, and I really do. I was
>using the Spireva Inhaler, but it caused my throat to swell, and now I need
>something else. I really hope the quitters in here don't believe anything
>you say, because smoking is death!
Very sorry to hear that you're circling the drain, but if you didn't
get emphysema from cigars, kindly leave ASC off your crosspost list.
nightlight
> nightlight wrote:
>>>>The only statistically significant result was the _protective_ effect
>>>>(~20% lower risk) of secondary smoke against lung cancer for children of
>>>>smokers:
>>>>
>>>>"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
>>>>increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
>>>>95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
>>>
>>>
>>>Neither the "protective" effect referred to nor the "RESULTS" quote
>>>appear anywhere with the article cited here.
>>
>>The cited lung cancer "odds ratio" OR for children of smokers
>
>
> No, asswipe. You're just making stuff up, and you got caught.
>
The sentence I quoted earlier:
"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
is in the abstract of the paper precisely as I stated it, which you can
find and verify at PubMed and JNCI full text links I gave. You might try
wiping off your eyeglasses or ask your nurse to help you if you still
can't find it at either link. In the article itself, you will also find
(on page 1442) an interesting additional fact (conveniently buried
inside a longer sentence by the strongly antismoking scientists):
"... and there was a decreasing trend according to cumulative exposure,
expressed either as smoker-years or weighted smoker-years (Table 2)."
i.e. they found a proper dose-response relation for this protective
effect of ETS on children of smokers: the more parents smoked, the lower
lung cancer risk of the children! And if they don't smoke at all, the
risk goes up by 28 percent. How about putting that bit of info on the
cigarette packs. For the children, of course.
These are interesting little facts that should startle any Big Pharma
shill who comes to town to peddle smoking bans in cars with children --
smoking parents can accuse her that, according to the multination 1998
WHO study (and others before that), she is trying to increase lung
cancer risk of their children, presumably for the financial gains of her
paymasters.
For your convenience, here are both links & citation for the WHO study,
again:
----------------------------------------------
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Oct 7;90(19):1440-50.
----------------------------------------------
"Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke and lung cancer in Europe."
Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, Benhamou E, Benhamou S, Darby SC, Ferro
G, Fortes C, Gonzalez CA, Jockel KH, Krauss M, Kreienbrock L, Kreuzer M,
Mendes A, Merletti F, Nyberg F, Pershagen G, Pohlabeln H, Riboli E,
Schmid G, Simonato L, Tredaniel J, Whitley E, Wichmann HE, Winck C,
Zambon P, Saracci R.
----------------------------------------------
PubMed (abstract only)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (full text)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440
rainbowd...@lycos.com
rainbowd...@lycos.com
ni...@verizon.net
Robert(Mincing Babs) Broughton wrote:
>
> No, asswipe. You're just making stuff up, and you got caught.
Oh girl, you're so cute when you get bitchie! LOL!
nightlight
> Robert(Mincing Babs) Broughton wrote:
>
>
>>No, asswipe. You're just making stuff up, and you got caught.
>
>
> Oh girl, you're so cute when you get bitchie! LOL!
>
Did you have problem accessing links I gave and verifying cited
"results" statement? What is his problem?
styl...@lycos.com
ANSWER AND APOLOGY TO THE REAL SOLDIERS.
toonertoo
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,701
Rep Power: 185 Re: Resignation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter I think is OK, as rngri already had a new job, wasnt trying
to increase his career chances at UPS, and sometimes there just isnt
another word that fits. In which case it was not a career building,
character supporting letter, just his thoughts.
Now as I have heard from several say, they think he is a troll, you
would have to be pretty sick to have a story like this and a pseudo
post of his wife, and I for one cant question it as I am not in the
military and dont know how they shift their people, etc. I do know they
try to be flexible as I have a son in the military and any time their
has been an emergency, at home, and there have been several, his BOSS
accomodates him. Although he is not in Iraq, he holds a pretty
important position. So I just believe rngri. I could be wrong, but I
dont think so. And if it is true as I think it is. God Bless him. If it
turns out to be not true, he will pay his dues
Shawn Hirn
nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
How so? The abstract clearly says ...
"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood
exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a
dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to
spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure."
This study refers to exposure as a child to second-hand smoke. There,
the study found no relationship between childhood exposure to
second-hand smoke and a risk of lung cancer.
In fact, the study clearly indicates a slight risk of lung cancer by
adults who re exposed to spousal and workplace ETS, but that risk
dropped after cessation of exposure ... according to this study.
You are clearly reading more into this study than is there.
This study also says nothing about childhood exposure to second-hand
smoke being associated with other ailments such as asthma. It also says
nothing about the risk of heart disease in smokers or lung cancer by
smokers.
cra...@gmail.com
> In article <6rCdndgwy46mvDPY...@rcn.net>,
> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
> > The only statistically significant result was the _protective_ effect
> > (~20% lower risk) of secondary smoke against lung cancer for children of
> > smokers:
> >
> > "RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
> > increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
> > 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
>
> How so? The abstract clearly says ...
>
> "CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood
> exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a
> dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to
> spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
> of exposure."
Doesn't matter. The numbers speak for themselves. The OR = 0.78. The
CI states that one can say, with 95% probability, that the real value
falls between 0.64-0.96.
Reminder: An OR = 1.0 means that there is neither increased risk nor
decreased risk (compared to the control). <1.0 means decreased risk,
while >1.0 means increased risk.
Since all the values in the range 0.64-0.96 < 1.0, we can say with 95%
probability that there is a decreased risk.
> In fact, the study clearly indicates a slight risk of lung cancer by
> adults who re exposed to spousal and workplace ETS, but that risk
> dropped after cessation of exposure ... according to this study.
This wasn't a statistically significant result. The CI specified a
range that included values which contradict the claim that "the study
found a slight risk of lung cancer by adults who are exposed to spousal
and workplace ETS".
> You are clearly reading more into this study than is there.
Nightlight is paying careful attention to the numbers. The prose is
misleading.
> This study also says nothing about childhood exposure to second-hand
> smoke being associated with other ailments such as asthma. It also says
> nothing about the risk of heart disease in smokers or lung cancer by
> smokers.
I'm not sure why you make this last remark.
Joe LaVigne
>> This study also says nothing about childhood exposure to second-hand
>> smoke being associated with other ailments such as asthma. It also says
>> nothing about the risk of heart disease in smokers or lung cancer by
>> smokers.
>
> I'm not sure why you make this last remark.
Oddly enough, as smoking rates have significantly decreased in the US,
asthma rates have continued to increase.
DELONGPREBUM
WOW! This guy is a zealous pro-smoking thundering zealot who roars on
about the health BENEFITS of smoking (!!?), like they used to in the
1950s.
His references are all BULLSHIT, by the way.
The man is a retard and a true "ASC"er!
***
!
Marc Schneiderman
<jlav...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>Oddly enough, as smoking rates have significantly decreased in the US,
>asthma rates have continued to increase.
And, despite better therapies, asthma deaths continue to climb (most
in the inner cities.) Cockroach allergies anyone?
CigarBaron
Alex W.
"Marc Schneiderman" <garb...@telerama.com> wrote in message
news:5cc1r2tmhqg48n6g4...@4ax.com...
Only in NYC...
:-)
There may be a perverse effect of increasing exposure of the respiratory
tract to allergens and irritants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and small
particulate matter from cars by reducing the protective covering of phlegm
and tar caused by smoking.
nightlight
> WOW! This guy is a zealous pro-smoking thundering zealot who roars on
> about the health BENEFITS of smoking (!!?), like they used to in the
> 1950s.
>
> His references are all BULLSHIT, by the way.
>
> The man is a retard and a true "ASC"er!
>
Despite the initial impression, I am sure the readers of these
newsgroups will see beyond the cryptic appearance and appreciate the
depth of the underlying insight and knowledge implicit in your response.
nightlight
> In article <6rCdndgwy46mvDPY...@rcn.net>,
> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an
>>increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
>>95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)."
>
>
> How so? The abstract clearly says ...
>
> "CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood
> exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a
> dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to
> spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
> of exposure."
-- Study discussed -------------------------------------------
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (full text)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440
--------------------------------------------------------------
It is typical for antismoking "scientists" to express euphemistically
(or not state verbally at all) any finding that indicates beneficial
effects of tobacco smoke (and there are many of such).
I wasn't talking about their biases or parsing the meanings of their use
of term "association" in the abstract but about their own actual data,
the scientific facts about tobacco smoke they uncovered. As already
explained to you, their _data_ shows statistically significant (within
the gold standard 95% confidence interval) increase lung cancer risk of
28% for children of non-smokers compared to children of smokers.
Note that the claim of cancerogenic risk of SHS at work (office,
restaurants,..etc) that EPA, US Surgeon General ... etc. is based on a
much weaker statistical association, 19% percent increased risk and at
much weaker confidence interval (90%, which is not the CI standard
accepted in science).
As to what exactly their term "associated" in the abstract means, it
certainly does not mean some general 'statistical association of any
kind', since their data & stated results do show that there is a
statistically significant association (just going the "wrong" way).
Their use of the term "association" before the conclusion hints how they
can say in conclusion that there is "no association", yet their data
appears to show otherwise. At the top, where they give background, they
refer to the "association" as follows:
--------
BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this
possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of
risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the
effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To
address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung
cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.
-------
So "_this_ association" they are referring from there on is the one
stated at the top, the suggested increase in the LC risk with ETS
exposure. That interpretation of "The Association" is further reinforced
in their statement of study results:
---------------
RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was _not associated_ with an
increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78;
95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96).
---------------
The conclusion is merely an _equivocation_ of the more precise statement
of the results "not associated" as "no association", which considered in
_isolation_ (as you did) allows for multiple interpretations. In other
words, you fell (wishfully) for their verbal spin in the "conclusion"
and failed to consider their own statement of the "results" right above
the "conclusion" or the "background" at the top of the abstract so you
can disambiguate "The Association" that was evaluated.
While typical, this example is not the worst kind of creative verbal
twists and turns that strongly biased antismoking "scientists" do
whenever faced with the "wrong" kinds of results. Here is a brief
analysis of an earlier USA study, which also found protective effects of
tobacco smoke for the children of smokers:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html
------------------------------------------------------------
An odd passive smoking result
by J. R. Johnstone
Epidemiology has become increasingly suspect as the results of this
discipline are used more and more as tools for social engineering.
Smoking, drinking and diet are but a few of many aspects of daily life
which are subject to government intervention and private castigation as
a consequence of the results of trials to determine the effects of
lifestyle on health and mortality. I have shown elsewhere that many such
trials have had their results misinterpreted both by their authors and
by others (1).
Here is another example R.C. Brownson et al. in the abstract to their
paper "Passive smoking and lung cancer in non smoking women"(2) state
"Ours and other recent studies suggest a small but consistent increased
risk of lung cancer from passive smoking". That is not the case.
Whatever other studies may have suggested, theirs shows nothing of the
sort. On the contrary, their study suggests that passive smoking
prevents lung cancer.
Their results are summarised in their Tables 1 to 3 which list a total
of 76 odds ratios. These compare different exposure situations and also
different types of lung cancer in different situations. Of the 76, 67
are non-significant. Their 9 significant odds ratios range from 0.4 to
0.7, all showing a reduction in lung cancer with passive smoke exposure.
These, the only significant results in their tables, are not mentioned
in their abstract or any other part of their text . Instead they say,
for example, "There was little evidence of increased lung cancer risk
associated with passive smoke exposure in childhood (Table 1)". Table 1
lists 16 odds ratios, all of them less than one and 7 of them
significantly so. This is not "little evidence of increased lung cancer
risk" but good evidence of decreased lung cancer risk.
This odd result appears to have gone unnoticed.
--- References
1. Johnstone, J.R. Health Scare : The Misuse of Science in Public Health
Policy (Australian Institute for Public Policy , [now the Institute of
Public Affairs] Perth ,1991)
2. Brownson, R.C., Alavanja, M.C.R., Hock, E.T. & Loy,T. S. American
Journal of Public Health 82, 1525-1530 (1992)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/136/6/623
------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the authors didn't even state in their abstract the sole
statistically significant results they found (the protective effect of
ETS for the children of smokers, which was stronger than the European
study we discussed). They don't even state their sole significant
finding _verbally_ anywhere in the text. They apparently could only bear
to state their sole statistically significant finding as figures, but
their tongues just could not verbalize it. It just irked them so badly.
Their tortured language and euphemisms would be quite comical if the
antismoking con men paying these "scientists" weren't swindling the
smokers of many billions every year based on the antismoking "science"
they buy with the few crumbs from this loot.
> This study refers to exposure as a child to second-hand smoke. There,
> the study found no relationship between childhood exposure to
> second-hand smoke and a risk of lung cancer.
They don't say they found "no relationship" (this is not a dating show
transcript, anyway). They don't even say they found 'no relation' (they
did find statistically significant relation, as their stated figures
show). Their 'conclusion' was merely euphemistic _equivocation_ of the
term "not associated" in their statements of results, as "no
association" in the conclusion section.
Despite all that linguistic dance by the study authors, the study
sponsor, WHO, wasn't happy with the finding (they were paying them to
create, by whatever it took, the "proof" that ETS is increasing lung
cancer risk of the exposed children, not to discover that in reality it
is actually protective against lung cancer). The WHO officials denounced
immediately the study they funded as soon as the word about the "wrong"
results leaked out, while the team of dozens scientists who conducted
the research went on to publish it in a peer reviewed journal, anyway.
>
> You are clearly reading more into this study than is there.
Not really. This particular "anomaly" has been repeatedly observed
before and after the cited paper. In fact, the subsequent attempt by the
very same researchers to get to the bottom of it and hopefully reverse
the "wrong" finding of the apparent protective effect of tobacco smoke
for the children of smokers, backfired even worse than the first one --
to their horror, upon a closer look they found the lung cancer risk of
children _not exposed_ to the benefits of tobacco smoke to be 67 percent
higher than of the children exposed to the said benefits (instead of the
28 percent increase observed in the first study).
{ NOTE: Some 'lung cancer' fans and groupies reading the paragraph above
may object to my labeling of the dramatic reduction in lung cancer rates
of the children of smokers a "benefit". Sorry Mr. Hirn, but the facts
are what they are and I happen to be a fan of the children above, hence
biased against 'lung cancer' and its antismoking cheering squads.}
"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of adenocarcinoma of
the lung"
Boffetta P, et al., Int J Cancer. 1999 Nov 26;83(5):635-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10521800&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
Regarding the childhood exposure to tobacco smoke, the facts are even
more interesting for the _primary_ smoke. For example, for health
reasons tobacco smoking was _compulsory_ for students in the most
prestigious boys schools of British Empire.
It gets even curioser than that -- a team of British doctors studied in
1970s Semai people of Malaysia who start smoking at about age two, as
soon as they are weaned from nursing, and smoke into the ripe old age
without developing any so-called 'smoking related' diseases (e.g. in
1977, 12000 Semai were medically examined & x-rayed and not a single
lung cancer was found; cf. Whitby, 2nd ed. pp. 26, 103, citing 1977 BMJ
study by Dr. C.Y. Caldwell at al.):
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (book)
* scanned copy of the book is linked here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
This may surprise you, but the relation between lung cancer and smoking
in general, is riddled with "anomalies" -- any time the antismoking
"scientists" go beyond the blind statistical correlations and try get at
the causal relations using hard science, such as animal experiments and
randomized intervention trials, the data invariably goes "wrong":
tobacco smoke appears to be explicitly protective against lung cancer.
These "anomalous" effects appeared already in the original "discovery"
of the association between lung cancer and smoking by Richard Doll (the
father of antismoking "science" and recently exposed as scientific fraud).
In that 1950s UK research, Doll and Hill found that those smokers
_inhaling_ tobacco smoke had _significantly lower_ risk of lung cancer
than those not inhaling it. The famous British mathematician, Sir Ronald
A. Fisher (the founder of statistical methods in science as we know them
today), upon examining their data, congratulated Doll & Hill for
discovering not just the cause of lung cancer - tobacco smoking, but
also a way to prevent it - the inhaling of tobacco smoke.
Doll "solved" the embarrassing problem in subsequent studies by simply
refraining from asking smokers any more the questions about inhaling.
Doll's "solution" became a template for the antismoking "scientific
method" in the decades that followed. Half a century later, the pillars
of the antismoking "scientific" claims are still resting on the blind
statistical associations, delicately crafted questionnaires, persistent
reliance on soft scientific methods, determined avoidance of all hard
science capable of distinguishing causes and effects and peculiar
silence about the numerous "anomalies" that the methods of hard science
routinely produce. Well, people do worse things than lying for the kind
of money extorted from smokers based on all this antismoking voodoo.
== R.A. Fisher "Cigarettes, Cancer and Statistics"
The Centennial Review, vol. II, no. 2, pp. 151-166 (Spring 1958)
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher274.pdf
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
== Father of antismoking "science" Sir Richard Doll exposed as a
scientific fraud and master of blame-the-victim "scientific" method
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a5941dd832b3c36d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Lauren A. Colby "In Defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
== Some anomalies in LC:smoking link
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=7161047671#7161047671
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5841016571#5841016571
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
> This study also says nothing about childhood exposure to second-hand
> smoke being associated with other ailments such as asthma. It also says
> nothing about the risk of heart disease in smokers or lung cancer by
> smokers.
It says nothing about the genital warts among homosexual hamsters
either. None of those were the topics being researched in this study
(they were examining the lifetime ETS exposure of the existent lung
cancer patients).
nightlight
>>in the inner cities.) Cockroach allergies anyone?
>
>
> Only in NYC...
> :-)
>
> There may be a perverse effect of increasing exposure of the respiratory
> tract to allergens and irritants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and small
> particulate matter from cars by reducing the protective covering of phlegm
> and tar caused by smoking.
Tobacco is a medicinal plant, cultivated and honed for thousands of
years by Native American shamans precisely for the beneficial effects of
its smoke (e.g. tobacco was popularized in Europe as a treatment for
bronchitis, see Whitby's book).
Until 1950s tobacco smoking was commonly used and even advised by
medical textbooks as a treatment for asthma and allergies. The dramatic
rise in childhood ashtma rates of recent decades is paralleled by the
simultaneous decline in smoking and even greater decline of childhood
ETS exposure (due to the increased care of declining number of smoking
parents to avoid exposing their kids to smoke; in fact, many doctors
blame the rapid rise in asthma to excessive cleanliness).
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Cancer & asthma rates in 20th century (see study linked there)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5841016571#5841016571
Miss Elaine Eos
cra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This study also says nothing about childhood exposure to second-hand
> > smoke being associated with other ailments such as asthma. It also says
> > nothing about the risk of heart disease in smokers or lung cancer by
> > smokers.
>
> I'm not sure why you make this last remark.
It also says nothing about the risk of broken ankles, warts or
contraction of herpes by smokers. Can anyone suggest why that might be?
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Shawn Hirn
Joe LaVigne <jlav...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
Not odd at all. Asthma is caused by many factors, including smog and
other issues. Air pollution is a pressing problem in many areas. the
increased rate of asthma victims may be one indication of that fact.
nightlight
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/msg/8e124f894da31df8
>
> In the anti-smoking literature it is not uncommon to find authors
> saying the reverse of what their results show. Sir Richard Doll was
> caught doing this in the BMJ a few years ago:
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7257/378/a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=doll&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT,HWELTR
> Another example:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html
>
Thanks Ray for the Richard Doll's example of this "scientific technique"
which is a variation on the Big Lie technique in politics (i.e. a normal
person could hardly imagine the kind of chutzpah needed for authors to
declare in the abstract conclusions precisely the opposite from what
their own results and figures given in the very same paper show). Doll
was certainly a master in the full repertoire of scientific fraud
techniques. Maybe both examples ought to go into the future revisions of
your review paper:
J. R. Johnstone, P. D. Finch
"Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
The quantities of blatant fraud in antismoking "science" are so vast
that your paper could grow into a book and a worthy heir to the book of
that other author from 'down under':
William T. Whitby's "The Smoking Scare De-bunked"
scanned online copy (also of his book "Smoking is Good for You"):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
{ There must be something about Australian air or water (or is it the
Coriolis forces down under spinning the pipe smoke the other way;) that
yields the sharpest critiques of antismoking available. Even the great
Ronald A. Fisher was a senior research fellow at the CSIRO in Adelaide,
Australia (upon retiring from Cambridge in 1957), when he took apart the
early antismoking fraud of Doll & Hill. }
The health of smokers around the world would benefit (beyond the
benefits already provided by the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco), if
you, as the most knowledgable present day author on the subject of
antismoking scientific fraud, could cover in some depth (with full
citations and perhaps scanned copies of relevant papers, or at least
pages) the "WITCH DOCTOR EFFECT" of the antismoking scientific fraud,
acting as the proverbial 'DEATH CURSE' on the health of modern day
smokers, which Eysenck wrote about, as quoted below (unfortunately with
incomplete citations and no online copies of the papers). The
antismoking "Sickness Industry" first lays this 'death curse' upon
smokers (reinforced by tobacco hypertaxation & social ostracism), then
it charges them more money to lift it (in the form of pharmaceutical
smoking cessation 'therapies') and finally it charges them much more on
pharmaceutical substitutes for the numerous therapeutic & protective
effects of this ancient medicine (nicotine covers only the main
signalling mechanism, but not the full medicinal magic of the tobacco
smoke) and to fix the health damages of the biochemical meltdown caused
by quitting. Just few crumbs from this vast loot buy then more
antismoking "science" to amplify the curse, more smoking bans to make
the 'curse' sting even harder (and yield some profit by forcing smokers
to buy pharmaceutical nicotine to get around) and more "grass roots"
organizations to agitate for these bans and to camouflage the financial
interests behind the antismoking con. Among all the business models the
antismoking one is a true masterpiece (it may be overtaken soon,
though, by the antiobesity scam cooked up by the same chefs, using the
same "scientific" techniques).
== Antismoking 'Death Curse' ==
-----------------------------------------------------------
There was a study in Heidelberg, described by
Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989)
in which 528 men were asked whether they, as smokers,
were convinced that they would be very likely to
develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other
'smoking related diseases'.
The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that
their views were taken from information in the media,
had an almost _three times higher death rate_ at the
end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.
Fear can kill. This has been known since disease
was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many
people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking
related diseases' than by any actual disease itself.
From: http://www.forces.org/writers/hatton/files/murder.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Additional materials are at the links below
== Money trail behind antismoking con
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/18ce47ecd9c15eda
== Tobacco and other herbal & traditional remedies under
attack from the "Sickness Industry"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/7b173004cc986af1
== Robert Wood Johnson Foundation buying antismoking "science"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Antiobesity scam, a worthy heir of antismoking con
The Cholesterol Myths
http://www.health911.com/bookreviews/bookr1.htm
== Organizing against antismoking conmen & their 'death curse'
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/866605742/m/2771083571?r=5031094571#5031094571
Shawn Hirn
nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
Why aren't these references cited by tobacco companies on their web
sites and when they litigate smoking liability cases? The answer is
simple, the legal counsel for the defendants (i.e., tobacco companies)
do not want to risk being caught in a lie. Perjury is a serious offense.
nightlight
>>
>>J. R. Johnstone, P. D. Finch
>>"Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
>>http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
>>
>>The quantities of blatant fraud in antismoking "science" are so vast
>>that your paper could grow into a book and a worthy heir to the book of
>>that other author from 'down under':
>>
>>William T. Whitby's "The Smoking Scare De-bunked"
>>scanned online copy (also of his book "Smoking is Good for You"):
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
>
>
> Why aren't these references cited by tobacco companies on their web
> sites and when they litigate smoking liability cases? The answer is
> simple, the legal counsel for the defendants (i.e., tobacco companies)
> do not want to risk being caught in a lie. Perjury is a serious offense.
You are confusing legal strategy of tobacco companies with science. The
two subjects are in entirely different realms.
Big tobacco companies were dwarfed by the antismoking behemoth
(pharmaceutical & medical industries with their bureaucratic enforcers).
Since their objective is profit, it suited them better, in the short
term at least, to make deals with the much stronger enemy (at the
expense of their own customer). Since the government took up the role of
protecting Big Tobacco from the customer backlash and from erosion of
their market share, using state laws and regulations, that strategy was
a pure gain for the BT. When the swindle eventually collapses, though,
as any such swindle must, the Big Tobacco will become less Big.
I assume your switching the topic from scientific questions to the
subject of legal strategies means you have changed your mind and
accepted the scientific evidence cited. (Not that it matters for
anything, other than your own pleasure of finally understanding
something. Good for you.)
btorvik2
> His doctors found a lot of polyps in the inside of his lungs. The
> doctors attributed those polyps to smoking. As soon as he got out of
> the hospital, he quit smoking. This person told me he feels a lot
> healthier since he quit smoking.
>
> For some reason, many people need to have a near death experience
> before they realize smoking is not in their best interest. I hope
> those who are reading this do not fall into that camp. There is no
> reason not to quit smoking unless you enjoy making some tobacco
> company rich.
Cigarette smoking....agreed (which is why I quit 25 years ago)
Cigar smoking....very little lung risk (Unless you inhale)..There are
somewhat increased risks for oral/esophegeal cancers..but not enough to keep
me from enjoying my cigars.
secondary smoke...Almost no real scientific evidence of any harm to
otherwise healthy individuals, although it can be irritating and annoying.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Robert Broughton
>
> secondary smoke...Almost no real scientific evidence of any harm to
> otherwise healthy individuals,
Where did you get this from? All of the real scientific evidence tells us
that tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. There is no evidence
whatsoever that any of these known carcinogens magically disappear when a
smoker exhales.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"It should be legal for a private maternity ward to permit smoking."
- Chuck Wright, May 22, 2006
Bill
wrote:
> A recent study (and a discussion on so called "smoker's lungs"
> and emphysema) showing protective effects of smoking against
> respiratory problems and lung impairments:
>
> "Smoker's Lungs" con, Emphysema and Study Demonstrating
> Protective Effects of Tobacco smoke:http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r...
Crock of shit.
btorvik2
> btorvik2 wrote:
>
>>
>> secondary smoke...Almost no real scientific evidence of any harm to
>> otherwise healthy individuals,
>
> Where did you get this from? All of the real scientific evidence
> tells us that tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. There is
> no evidence whatsoever that any of these known carcinogens magically
> disappear when a smoker exhales.
There is also no scientific evidence to show any of them have ever produced
a greater incidence of lung cancer in cigar smokers unless they
intentionally inhale.
I can't find one study which proves otherwise.
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>secondary smoke...Almost no real scientific evidence of any harm to
>otherwise healthy individuals, although it can be irritating and annoying.
This has the added benefit of being true.
CigarBaron
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>Where did you get this from? All of the real scientific evidence tells us
>that tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. There is no evidence
>whatsoever that any of these known carcinogens magically disappear when a
>smoker exhales.
But the loads are at such low levels in second hand smoke to make them
harmless. If one studies all 80+ "studies" on second hand tobacco
smoke the combined relative risk of second hand tobacco smoke causing
lung cancer is 1.4, which is of no clinical value. BTW, you're RR of
stroke with an elevated homocystine level of 15 or greater is 3.0.
Have you had your homocystine tested?
Those are the facts.
CigarBaron
Shawn Hirn
Marc Schneiderman <garb...@telerama.com> wrote:
Good comment about homocystine levels. Checking it is important, and
anyone who does have their homocystine level checked will likely also be
asked if they smoke and told to stop smoking if they do smoke.
Robert Broughton
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:49:09 GMT, Robert Broughton
> <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>Where did you get this from? All of the real scientific evidence tells us
>>that tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens. There is no evidence
>>whatsoever that any of these known carcinogens magically disappear when a
>>smoker exhales.
>
>
> But the loads are at such low levels in second hand smoke to make them
> harmless.
Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or working
an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is NOTHING
harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a lie.
>
> Those are the facts.
>
No, it's tobacco industry asswipe silliness.
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>
>Good comment about homocystine levels. Checking it is important, and
>anyone who does have their homocystine level checked will likely also be
>asked if they smoke and told to stop smoking if they do smoke.
Not by anyone who understands Homocystine. Your physicial might OTOH
ask you about your alcohol drinking habits, to cut down, and start
folic acid, at about 1+mg/day for a start.
CigarBaorn
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or working
>an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
The highest relative risks were on the poorly done Chinese studies
(about 10 of them) where almost no one could (in that society) be
totally free of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) or air pollution.
Therefore they really had no clean cohort to compute their relative
risks. Anyway, their numbers were way way off from the 70 other
studies demonstrated a relative risk of lung cancer from heavy ETS
(working in a closed space with 15 coworkers who smoked and who had at
least 2 smokers at home as well) was about 3.5. The 70 or so other
studies had relative risks close to baseline (1.0) making the combined
relative risk 1.4 (still too low to make any conclusions to link ETS
to lung cancer, despite the poorly concluded Surgeon General's
report.)
Here's a blurb on relative risks:
Epidemiology deals only in probabilities, and so is considered a
somewhat crude science.
Because of this, the rule of thumb is that any RR below 2.0, even if
it is statistically significant, is probably due to bias or some
unsuspected confounder. (A confounder is something that skews the
numbers, like age, gender, where people live, etc.) RRs of 3.0 and
higher are preferred.
"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3
or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell,
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"
"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget
it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug
Administration.
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually
difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance,
statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are
sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute
"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio
[relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as
is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat,
IAQC epidemiologist
CigarBaron
Robert Broughton
>
> Epidemiology deals only in probabilities, and so is considered a
> somewhat crude science.
>
Considered by whom?
Robert Broughton
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:26:29 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Good comment about homocystine levels. Checking it is important, and
>>anyone who does have their homocystine level checked will likely also be
>>asked if they smoke and told to stop smoking if they do smoke.
>
>
> Not by anyone who understands Homocystine.
"Smoking increases plasma homocysteine and post-CEA intimal
hyperplasia." - "Cigarette smoke increases intimal hyperplasia and
homocysteine in a rat carotid endarterectomy", Journal of Surgical Research
Volume 121, Issue 1. I have no doubt that these people understand
homocysteine a lot better than you do, asswipe.
btorvik2
If one studies all 80+ "studies" on second hand tobacco
> smoke the combined relative risk of second hand tobacco smoke causing
> lung cancer is 1.4, which is of no clinical value. BTW, you're RR of
> stroke with an elevated homocystine level of 15 or greater is 3.0.
> Have you had your homocystine tested?
No but I've certainly had my patience tested by the anti-smoking zealots.
btorvik2
>
> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or
> working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
>
> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is NOTHING
> harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a lie.
Could you provide a reference to such a study.
I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by obviously
biased sources.
Robert Broughton
You haven't been looking very hard. Try googling Norma Broin and Heather
Crowe.
Shawn Hirn
"btorvik2" <btor...@aol.com> wrote:
Geez! Even the tobacco companies admit that there are risks to second
hand smoke.
nightlight
>>>Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is NOTHING
>>>harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a lie.
>>
>>Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>
>>I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by obviously
>>biased sources.
>
>
> Geez! Even the tobacco companies admit that there are risks to second
> hand smoke.
You mean, who needs science when we can just ask lawyers? Well, that's
one way of conceding that you have no scientific basis for your
antismoking zeal (i.e. smoker envy). I suppose, the next best thing to
enjoying the healing magic of the real elixir:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_thread/thread/fd61c18fc55e0be7
is being a groupie and hanging around those who do. And it's cheaper
that way, too.
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>"Smoking increases plasma homocysteine and post-CEA intimal
>hyperplasia." - "Cigarette smoke increases intimal hyperplasia and
>homocysteine in a rat carotid endarterectomy", Journal of Surgical Research
>Volume 121, Issue 1. I have no doubt that these people understand
>homocysteine a lot better than you do, asswipe.
I doubt it when it comes to humans. And, do you know how this
translates to humans? How much does the homocystine rise in human
smokers compared to baseline? Data? There is none, but I would
suggest you knew that. Consummate liar.
CigarBaron
btorvik2
> btorvik2 wrote:
>
>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>
>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or
>>> working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
>>>
>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a
>>> lie.
>>
>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>
>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>> obviously biased sources.
>>
>
> You haven't been looking very hard. Try googling Norma Broin and
> Heather Crowe.
I did.
I found lots of reference to a couple of law suits regarding second hand
smoke but I didn't see any reference to any valid scientific studies
supporting them.
I did find this:
PART ONE :Myths about Heather Crowe
MYTH #1 - Heather Crowe was an average, typical restaurant worker - so what
happened to her could easily happen to anyone who works around second-hand
smoke.
MYTH #2 - When Heather Crowe says; "I want to be the last person to die from
second-hand smoke", she is referring to the many other documented cases of
people being killed by exposure to second-hand smoke.
MYTH #3 - After working 40 years as a waitress, non-smoker Heather Crowe was
diagnosed as having "a smoker's tumor" in her lungs.
MYTH #4 - The fact that the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ruled
in Heather Crowe's favor, proves that second-hand smoke causes cancer (and
heart disease, stroke, emphysema, asthma, and every other respiratory or
circulatory ailment) in non-smokers.
MYTH #5 - It was Heather Crowe's tragic story that inspired all the
anti-smoking organizations to mount fanatical efforts to secure total public
smoking bans in every community across our country. The members of these
organizations have no motives for wanting total public smoking bans other
than to protect other workers from suffering Heather Crowe's fate.
btorvik2
There are risks to almost everything.
However, the point remains, I have yet to see any valid scientific studies
which support the kind of health risks, . from secondary smoke which are
being claimed-especially regarding lung cancer.
Robert Broughton
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:50:04 GMT, Robert Broughton
> <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Smoking increases plasma homocysteine and post-CEA intimal
>>hyperplasia." - "Cigarette smoke increases intimal hyperplasia and
>>homocysteine in a rat carotid endarterectomy", Journal of Surgical
>>Research Volume 121, Issue 1. I have no doubt that these people understand
>>homocysteine a lot better than you do, asswipe.
>
> I doubt it when it comes to humans.
A doubt based on either addiction or dishonesty.
KLC Lewis
"Robert Broughton" <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote in message
news:esk5o8$324$1...@venn.venn.bc.ca...
Yes, of course it should be. For thousands of years, mothers smoked in their
babies faces and no harm occurred. Nannyism, pure and simple.
As for your comment on "doubt," you're correct on that also. Vitamin "N" is
actually an alien spore, and all who ingest it become pod people. Sorry I
had to spill the beans, gang, but there ya go.
Robert Broughton
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> In article <5539ttF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "btorvik2" <btor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or
>>>> working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a
>>>> lie.
>>>
>>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>>
>>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>>> obviously biased sources.
>>
>> Geez! Even the tobacco companies admit that there are risks to second
>> hand smoke.
>
> There are risks to almost everything.
>
> However, the point remains,
No, your point does not remain.
> I have yet to see any valid scientific studies
> which support the kind of health risks, . from secondary smoke which are
> being claimed-especially regarding lung cancer.
>
Here's a valid scientific study for you, asswipe:
Atlantic City: Lung cancer SHS victim fired from casino for smoke ban
support
Casino Dismisses Worker Seeking Smoking Ban - New York Times
March 6, 2007
By RONALD SMOTHERS
TRENTON, March 5 - When the Tropicana opened its doors in Atlantic City 25
years ago, Vincent Rennich was a 24-year-old overseeing bets and payouts at
the craps tables.
Over the years, Mr. Rennich was promoted to floor supervisor, sent two
children to college and steered clear of efforts to bring in a union to
represent casino workers.
Although he never smoked, he received a diagnosis of lung cancer in 2005,
and he blamed the second-hand smoke he inhaled at the casino.
Mr. Rennich filed a civil suit against the Tropicana last July seeking
damages and pushing to have smoking banned on casino floors in New Jersey,
the only entertainment sites that are exempt from the state's smoking ban.
Over the weekend, Mr. Rennich was laid off by the Tropicana.
"How can they fire a guy with lung cancer?" Mr. Rennich asked. "What, I'm
suddenly no good after 25 years?"
A casino spokeswoman, Courtney Birmingham, declined to comment except to
say that Mr. Rennich was not the only person let go last weekend. Mr.
Rennich said that 17 other long-time employees were laid off in what the
casino - which was bought last year by Columbia Sussex, a Kentucky-based
company - described to them as "restructuring."
Mr. Rennich's dismissal came a week after he spoke before the Senate
Health Committee here in favor of a bill to eliminate the smoking
exemption for casinos.
And a month ago he addressed the City Council in Atlantic City - at times
emotional and darkly humorous - vainly urging the rejection of a
compromise ordinance that allows smoking in 25 percent of the gambling
areas in the city's 11 casinos.
Mr. Rennich, 48, learned that he had lung cancer by chance when he was
hospitalized after an automobile accident. He underwent surgery to have a
portion of his right lung removed, and returned to work five months later.
"This is all I've done," he said in explaining why he returned to his
$55,000-a-year job. "I personally didn't think they would fire me
considering how high profile and public I have been in the antismoking
effort. But now I<92>m all in."
State Senator Joseph F. Vitale, a Democrat from Middlesex County, who is
sponsoring legislation that would end the smoking exemption, said it
appeared that in letting Mr. Rennich go, the casino's new owners made a
business decision to replace several longtime employees with part-time
workers who earn less.
"It's more than just fundamentally unfair," Mr. Vitale said. "It is a
pathetic way to design a business model."
Mr. Rennich said he was determined to keep pressing his lawsuit against
the Tropicana, which he noted would not benefit him personally "because
I'll be dead." For now, he said, his main concern was how to pay for
private health insurance that he estimated would cost $800 a month.
"If I was the worst employee in the history of gaming," he asked, "how
could they get rid of me at this point?"
Robert Broughton
> Robert Broughton wrote:
>> btorvik2 wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member, or
>>>> working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated bar?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such a
>>>> lie.
>>>
>>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>>
>>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>>> obviously biased sources.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't been looking very hard. Try googling Norma Broin and
>> Heather Crowe.
>
> I did.
>
> I found lots of reference to a couple of law suits regarding second hand
> smoke but I didn't see any reference to any valid scientific studies
> supporting them.
>
You must have missed the part about Norma Broin's visit to the doctor.
> I did find this:
I read the comments on mychoice.ca from people who were unhappy that Heather
Crowe didn't die fast enough. They should be ashamed of themselves. So
should you, but shame is a human emotion.
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>Geez! Even the tobacco companies admit that there are risks to second
>hand smoke.
Cite?
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>A doubt based on either addiction or dishonesty.
I've been treating homocystine in patients for 25 years...that makes
me an expert. What are your credentials on homocystine. Do you even
know what yours is? Of course I somewhat demean myself by presenting
my credentials to a low life loser who posts on Usenet boards where
he's clearly not wanted. Guess there's so little else in your
pathetically loser life. So very sad. Go take your food stamps and
buy some celery and carrots and better yourself at least a little.
CigarBaron
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>The members of these
>organizations have no motives for wanting total public smoking bans other
>than to protect other workers from suffering Heather Crowe's fate.
>
>
>
>
>
>bernie
Funny, 80% of restaurant employees smoke (Surgeon General's report.)
Is she suing her fellow workers?
CigarBaron
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>Here's a valid scientific study for you, asswipe:
>
>Atlantic City: Lung cancer SHS victim fired from casino for smoke ban
>support
>Casino Dismisses Worker Seeking Smoking Ban - New York Times
>
hahahahah..."valid scientific study"....
So incredibly ignorant these loser trolls.
Thanks for the morning laugh.
CigarBaron
Shawn Hirn
Marc Schneiderman <garb...@telerama.com> wrote:
This is too easy.
Directly from a web site in the Philip Morris domain ...
"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in
non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as
asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear
infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health
officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult
asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of
secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand
smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around
others. Particular care should be exercised where children are
concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them."
Notice the second paragraph.
So, yes, it is clear that even the largest tobacco company in the world
(who also has the biggest vested interest in hiding that information)
admits that we should be guided by the policy recommendations of public
officials where second hand smoke is concerned.
Oh right, I know what your retort will be. You'll claim its bogus and
that someone is holding a gun up to the head of Philip Morris' CEO and
forcing him to add that statement to their web site instead of doing
what's best for the stockholders which is to try to get people to agree
with your silly claims.
Shawn Hirn
"btorvik2" <btor...@aol.com> wrote:
Here is the link I forgot to include in my previous post
<http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp>
I suspect you have seen plenty of links that tie illness to second hand
smoke; however, you simply are in denial that they are true.
Shawn Hirn
Marc Schneiderman <garb...@telerama.com> wrote:
Be that as it may, signing your posts as "CigarBaron" suggests a bit of
a bias in favor of smoking."
Shawn Hirn
"KLC Lewis" <nos...@spamless.com> wrote:
> "Robert Broughton" <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote in message
> news:esk5o8$324$1...@venn.venn.bc.ca...
> > Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:50:04 GMT, Robert Broughton
> >> <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Smoking increases plasma homocysteine and post-CEA intimal
> >>>hyperplasia." - "Cigarette smoke increases intimal hyperplasia and
> >>>homocysteine in a rat carotid endarterectomy", Journal of Surgical
> >>>Research Volume 121, Issue 1. I have no doubt that these people
> >>>understand
> >>>homocysteine a lot better than you do, asswipe.
> >>
> >> I doubt it when it comes to humans.
> >
> > A doubt based on either addiction or dishonesty.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Broughton
> > http://broughton.ca/
> > Vancouver, BC, Canada
> > "It should be legal for a private maternity ward to permit smoking."
> > - Chuck Wright, May 22, 2006
>
> Yes, of course it should be. For thousands of years, mothers smoked in their
> babies faces and no harm occurred.
Cite?
KLC Lewis
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-8A5BC0.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Human History. Study it.
Robert Broughton
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:49:47 GMT, Robert Broughton
> <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's a valid scientific study for you, asswipe:
>>
>>Atlantic City: Lung cancer SHS victim fired from casino for smoke ban
>>support
>>Casino Dismisses Worker Seeking Smoking Ban - New York Times
>>
>
>
> hahahahah..."valid scientific study"....
Are you claiming that Vincent Rennich doesn't have lung cancer, asswipe?
Robert Broughton
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:49:58 GMT, Robert Broughton
> <rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>A doubt based on either addiction or dishonesty.
>
>
> I've been treating homocystine in patients for 25 years...
Then how come you know so little about the subject, asswipe?
Robert Broughton
She can't, because she's dead, asswipe.
As I've pointed out before, if you were a human being, you would be ashamed
of yourself.
Robert Broughton
Hmm, I was wrong when I wrote that you were kidding.
Human history goes back about 10,000 years. Manufactured cigarettes have
been around for only the last 110 of them, and tobacco was unknown in
Europe and Asia prior to 1492. So, your "thousands of years" is obviously
false.
Robert Broughton
Uh, I think KLC was kidding. OTOH, Chuck Wright was dead serious.
KLC Lewis
Forgive me. I forgot that all of human history begins and ends with Western
culture. Mea culpa. Thousands of years of Native southern and northern
American peoples doesn't count as part of "Human History." Silly me.
KLC Lewis
Bob -- don't you think you're over-playing the "asswipe" gambit?
nightlight
> KLC Lewis wrote:
>>>>Yes, of course it should be. For thousands of years, mothers smoked in
>>>>their
>>>>babies faces and no harm occurred.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>Human History. Study it.
>
>
> Hmm, I was wrong when I wrote that you were kidding.
>
> Human history goes back about 10,000 years. Manufactured cigarettes have
> been around for only the last 110 of them, and tobacco was unknown in
> Europe and Asia prior to 1492. So, your "thousands of years" is obviously
> false.
>
Washington Post (Book Excerpt, Feb 8, 2002)
Iann Gatley: Tobacco: The Story of How Tobacco Seduced the World
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/tobacco.htm
-- quote:
Both Nicotiana rustica and Nicotiana tabacum are native only to the
Americas, where mankind came across them about 18,000 years ago. ...
...
Plant geneticists have established that tobacco's ‘centre of origin’,
i.e. the meeting place between a species’ genetic origin and the area in
which it was first cultivated, is located in the Peruvian/Ecuadorean
Andes. Estimates for its first date of cultivation range from 5000-3000 BC.
---------
Hence, humans started smoking somewhere between 5000 and 18000 years ago
(some older books put it at 8000 years ago) and started cultivating
tobacco as soon as they began to cultivate any plants at all.
As for the youngest smokers, children of Semai people (in Maylasia)
start smoking at age _two_, just as they are weaned from nursing and
then continue smoking anxiety free into the ripe old age. In 1970s
puzzled researchers medically examined (which included chest X-rays) all
12000 of Semai adults and not a single case of lung cancer (or other
so-called "smoking related" diseases) was found. See the BMJ [Feb 26,
1977 issue] citation in Whitby's book "Smoking is good for you", 2nd
edition pp. 26, 103:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/msg/80504e880cd27f48
Poor Semai, they don't know how bad it is for their health. Once they
learn about the danger, though, then restrict or ban smoking, their lung
cancer, emphysema and asthma.... rates will go down and become negative
numbers.
btorvik2
> btorvik2 wrote:
>
>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>> In article <5539ttF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "btorvik2" <btor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member,
>>>>> or working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated
>>>>> bar?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such
>>>>> a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>>>
>>>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>>>> obviously biased sources.
>>>
>>> Geez! Even the tobacco companies admit that there are risks to
>>> second hand smoke.
>>
>> There are risks to almost everything.
>>
>> However, the point remains,
>
> No, your point does not remain.
I believe it does...
A heart-rending article perhaps, but hardly valid scientific evidence.
My point does indeed remain.
Can someone direct me to ANY valid scientific study which shows that
secondary smoke causes any significant harm or health risks to otherwise
healthy individuals.
bernie (aka asswipe)
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
btorvik2
> btorvik2 wrote:
>
>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>> btorvik2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member,
>>>>> or working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated
>>>>> bar?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such
>>>>> a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>>>
>>>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>>>> obviously biased sources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't been looking very hard. Try googling Norma Broin and
>>> Heather Crowe.
>>
>> I did.
>>
>> I found lots of reference to a couple of law suits regarding second
>> hand smoke but I didn't see any reference to any valid scientific
>> studies supporting them.
>>
>
> You must have missed the part about Norma Broin's visit to the doctor.
>
I did.
>> I did find this:
>
> I read the comments on mychoice.ca from people who were unhappy that
> Heather Crowe didn't die fast enough. They should be ashamed of
> themselves. So should you, but shame is a human emotion.
I didn't even know who Heather Crowe was until you suggested I Google her.
I don't see why I should feel shame for asking for valid scientific evidence
on a claim.
Shaw Hirn at least provided a link to what appears to be some studies on
secondary smoke effects.
I haven't had a chance to look them over yet but I appreciate the input.
Your emotional tirades and name calling on the other hand do little to
validate your postion.
Robert Broughton
> Robert Broughton wrote:
>> btorvik2 wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>> btorvik2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Broughton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which load level? Sitting on the back porch with a family member,
>>>>>> or working an eight-hour shift in a smoky and poorly-ventilated
>>>>>> bar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are studies for the latter situation, and there is
>>>>>> NOTHING harmless about it. Shame on you for trying to spread such
>>>>>> a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you provide a reference to such a study.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been unable to find anything but anecdotal statements by
>>>>> obviously biased sources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You haven't been looking very hard. Try googling Norma Broin and
>>>> Heather Crowe.
>>>
>>> I did.
>>>
>>> I found lots of reference to a couple of law suits regarding second
>>> hand smoke but I didn't see any reference to any valid scientific
>>> studies supporting them.
>>>
>>
>> You must have missed the part about Norma Broin's visit to the doctor.
>>
>
> I did.
Have you gone back and looked it up?
>>
>> I read the comments on mychoice.ca from people who were unhappy that
>> Heather Crowe didn't die fast enough. They should be ashamed of
>> themselves. So should you, but shame is a human emotion.
>
> I didn't even know who Heather Crowe was until you suggested I Google her.
>
Well, there seems to be an awful lot that you don't know.
> I don't see why I should feel shame for asking for valid scientific
> evidence on a claim.
You should feel shame for spreading misinformation on a subject that you now
admit you know nothing about.
Robert Broughton
>
> Hence, humans started smoking somewhere between 5000 and 18000 years ago
> (some older books put it at 8000 years ago) and started cultivating
> tobacco as soon as they began to cultivate any plants at all.
>
And where is the historical record of mothers blowing smoke into the faces
of their babies during that period of time? _The Celestine Prophecy_,
maybe?